Eugene Sutton – Religion & Ethics NewsWeeklyhttp://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics
An examination of religion's role and the ethical dimensions behind top news headlines.Mon, 26 Feb 2018 18:35:49 +0000en-UShourly1https://wordpress.org/?v=4.9.1 Making Peace in Baltimorehttp://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/2015/05/01/may-1-2015-making-peace-in-baltimore/25929/
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/2015/05/01/may-1-2015-making-peace-in-baltimore/25929/#disqus_threadFri, 01 May 2015 20:00:49 +0000http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/?p=25929"It took many parts of very many communities to make peace in Baltimore," says Eugene Sutton, Episcopal Bishop of Maryland. "Religious leaders from all over the city—Christian mainly, Muslim and Jewish leaders—got out on the streets and congregations and really proclaimed a message of hope and of nonviolence and peace. City officials did the same." More →

]]>The death of Freddie Gray, an African-American man who died while in police custody, set off widespread—and sometimes violent—protests, marches, and demonstrations that have focused the attention of religious and civic leaders on issues of poverty, hopelessness, race, and police violence. Bishop Eugene Sutton, Episcopal bishop of the Diocese of Maryland, tells R&E “the cycle of hopelessness and poverty and violence has been building up for years,” but “the church has a moral voice that it can use,” and “eventually justice has to be done in order for there to be peace.”

]]>http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/2015/05/01/may-1-2015-making-peace-in-baltimore/25929/feed/0 Election Wrap-Uphttp://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/2008/11/07/episode-no-1210-perspectives-election-wrap-up/1259/
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/2008/11/07/episode-no-1210-perspectives-election-wrap-up/1259/#disqus_threadSat, 08 Nov 2008 02:52:01 +0000http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/?p=1259Bob Abernethy looks back on the impact of religion on the 2008 campaign with R & E Managing Editor Kim Lawton, professor John Green of the University of Akron’s Ray C. Bliss Institute, and Eugene Sutton, bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Maryland. More →

BOB ABERNETHY, anchor: Religion played a significant role throughout the long campaign and here to help assess that role is RELIGION & ETHICS NEWSWEEKLY managing editor Kim Lawton who led our program’s political coverage, and from Akron, Ohio John Green, a senior fellow at the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life and director of the Ray C. Bliss Institute at the University of Akron.

John welcome. Let’s get right into it. How did the religious groups vote?

Professor JOHN GREEN (Senior Fellow, Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life and Director, Ray C. Bliss Institute, University of Akron): Well, on his way to a sweeping electoral victory, Barack Obama made gains in almost all of the religious groups. However, he made the largest gains among groups that had been voting Democratic in previous elections. For instance, he made some big gains among black Protestants and among unaffiliated voters. He also made some gains among groups that have been voting Republican, such as white evangelical Protestants. But there the gains were somewhat more modest, for instance, about five percentage points. So Obama got about 26 percent of the white evangelical vote. This varied a little bit from state to state. As you might imagine, in the Deep South it was smaller. But in some of the swing states in the Midwest that were decided by just a handful of votes, Obama came close to getting 30 percent of the white evangelical vote.

KIM LAWTON (Managing Editor, RELIGION & ETHICS NEWSWEEKLY): And that was really significant, I think, because the Obama campaign targeted white evangelicals, evangelicals in general, in many of these battleground states. His campaign people were at evangelical colleges, and they really saw some openings there. So even though I think that the overall numbers of evangelicals didn’t swing dramatically toward the Democratic side — no one expected that. But in some of those key battleground states, I think it was very interesting that he did make some movement, and, you know, that could have had a real difference in the outcome.

ABERNETHY: John, back to you. People had been — some Democrats had been concerned about Catholic votes and about Jewish votes. How did they do?

Prof. GREEN: Well, Obama actually did quite well among Catholic voters, although white Catholics voted on balance for John McCain. Obama made gains over John Kerry’s vote among white Catholics, particularly in some of the key states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, so some pluses there. There also had been some concern that some of the Jewish community were skeptical about the Obama candidacy, but on election night the exit polls showed him actually picking up votes over the votes that Kerry got in 2004. So some pluses among Catholics and Jews for the Democrats as well.

Ms. LAWTON: Catholics have really become a key swing vote in the elections. They went for George Bush last time by slight majority; now slightly for the Democratic side. So it’ll be interesting to see in the next few years how the parties address that. But clearly Catholics are emerging as a group that’s hard to peg and very important.

ABERNETHY: And what do each of you say about how this leaves the religious right? Where are they as a power in politics?

Prof. GREEN: Well, the religious right has a mixed assessment coming out of this election. On the one hand, white evangelical voters did stick with John McCain in many parts of the country in a lot of key states. They’re one of the most loyal Republican constituencies. On the other hand, many Republican strategists wonder if some of the concessions made to the religious right in order to attract a high vote from evangelicals may have driven off other key constituencies that Republicans have to have if they’re going to come back in 2012 and win the presidency. So the religious right finds itself where it often is — in the midst of considerable controversy.

Ms. LAWTON: John McCain was never a favorite of the religious right to begin with, and so he never did have that special connection that George W. Bush had with evangelicals and with the religious right. Naming Sarah Palin helped him a little bit, but even that wasn’t enough. And, you know, Republicans are seeing they can’t win without these religious conservatives. They need them to be part of the coalition. But, as they saw this time around, they can’t win with only them. And so that does leave the religious right, I think, in a precarious position.

ABERNETHY: John, how do you assess the impact of the use of religion in political ads? I’m thinking about the ad in North Carolina, about somebody not being a believer, that kind of thing? Jeremiah Wright?

Prof. GREEN: Well, religion is a very powerful appeal to many Americans, precisely because they take their faith very seriously. But it can often backfire, and some of the examples you mentioned at the minimum didn’t do any good as far as we can tell from the exit polls in the final election results. But they may very well have done some harm. Americans respond very positively to what they see as sincere expressions of faith. But they’re very skeptical of hypocrisy, of intolerance, or what they might perceive as religious exclusiveness. So some of those appeals didn’t work that well in this election.

ABERNETHY: I’m interested in what you both find in these results, as some kind of indication of what to expect in years ahead.

LAWTON: Well the Democrats, for the first time in a long time, put a big, concerted effort in faith-based outreach, and, you know, again religion was also — then became a weapon in some of these contests. But it became a real tool for outreach. It was ultimately successful, and so I would guess that the Democratic Party is going to continue doing that. This is something Republicans seemed to have a lock on in recent years, and so I think that’s one change we will see.

ABERNETHY: John, can you see anything here that tells you something about what’s to come?

Prof. GREEN: Well, you know, despite the changes, the increase of support for the Democrats across the religious spectrum, some of the underlying differences are still there. For instance, by worship attendance the differences between white and black evangelicals, between Catholics and Protestants, are still very evident, only this time the Democrats were able to make those differences work for them. So I think that religion will continue to be a subject of political discourse because both parties will struggle to have an advantage.

ABERNETHY: John Green, many thanks.

Joining us for more reflection about the implications of Tuesday’s election: Eugene Sutton, bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Maryland. He’s the first African-American bishop of that diocese. Bishop, welcome.

ABERNETHY: A lot of us have been trying to find words to describe the meaning of Tuesday’s election. What does it mean to you?

Bishop SUTTON: Well, words are difficult to describe significant moments. More than words on our lips, I think we have to see what’s happening on people’s faces and bodies. What it means to me was that I was crying on Tuesday night. My wife and I, sitting there and watching the screen, tears coming down our faces, tears coming down the faces of people such as a woman on my staff who said that she voted this morning, and this older African-American woman just stopped and cried. We see it in the dancing, the crying in that crowd and people all over the world. The words will come later, but right now the meaning of it was something touched deep in their heart after that election.

Ms. LAWTON: It seemed to have touched a deep place not just for African Americans but people of many races as well. I mean, have you see that?

Bishop SUTTON: Yes. Yes, it’s a moment in our nation, but also in the world — a moment, I believe, of redemption, and I like to use that word, meaning opening a door for a new possibility rather than closing the doors of what has happened in the past, and we know about the past history of our nation, of oppression, and of closing doors and building walls. So this was a redemptive moment, I think. I think for people in my generation and older, we look at this as a redemption of the past, all of the work that our forefathers and mothers put in to make sure that we could see a day of a truly multiracial society, where barriers of race and gender and misunderstanding are broken down. That was our redemption. But for my sons and daughter, and for people in the younger generation, it’s a redemption, yes, but of the future. They’re looking forward. They’re looking ahead.

ABERNETHY: You mean more opportunity?

Bishop SUTTON: More opportunity, and also they read the headlines as we do in the newspapers today. We’re reading that output is declining and unemployment rising. Our financial system is on government life-support. Everything is out of whack. In Barack Obama’s election, no matter who we voted for, I think people realize that, you know, he’s giving us a more hopeful future. That’s a redemptive moment.

ABERNETHY: Do you see — several people have spoken to me about this, a sense that we can be better in some way. You know, that somehow those better angels of our nature have been revived and that there’s a possibility that we can behave in different ways?

Bishop SUTTON: Yeah, I think so, Bob. This election at this point — shortly after the results were announced, it no longer became about politics; no longer about Republican, Democrat, liberal, conservative. I think right now everybody knows something extraordinary has happened and is happening now. Around the world, people are looking at America that much more hopefully, and certainly in a different manner. They are seeing that the United States of America can still be a beacon of not only freedom and democracy, but of opportunities, of a vision of society that certainly Jesus had, and all of the great religions, that we can live peacefully. We can reach out to one another, and we don’t have to build these barriers anymore. So yes, it’s no longer about politics. It’s about possibilities at this point.

LAWTON: But, just very briefly, there’s also an acknowledgment in Barack Obama’s acceptance speech that the road ahead is difficult, too. This is not just, you know, the end of everything.

Bishop SUTTON: Well, of course, in that little speech of his, he recalled the great orators of the past, the prophets, including Martin Luther King Jr. and, when he said in that speech that the road will be long and our climb is steep and he says “we may not get there very soon.” But then, in the most extraordinary words that I’ve heard in a generation, he said, “America, I have never been more hopeful than I am tonight that we will get there. I promise you,” he said, “we as a people will get there.”

ABERNETHY: And you agree with that?

Bishop SUTTON: I agree with that or I wouldn’t be wearing a collar. I wouldn’t be a Christian. I’m a man of hope. I’m a person of hope. We’re a people of hope.

ABERNETHY: Eugene Sutton, Episcopal bishop of the Diocese of Maryland.

]]>http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/2008/11/07/episode-no-1210-perspectives-election-wrap-up/1259/feed/0Bishop Eugene Suttonhttp://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/2008/08/01/interview-bishop-eugene-sutton/9/
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/2008/08/01/interview-bishop-eugene-sutton/9/#disqus_threadFri, 01 Aug 2008 15:37:57 +0000http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/2008/08/27/interview-bishop-eugene-sutton/9Read more of Kim Lawton’s interview at the Lambeth Conference in Canterbury with Episcopal Bishop Eugene Sutton of Maryland:
Q: Overall, have there been new relationships built here, as the organizers suggest?
A: Oh, yes, this Lambeth Conference is all about the … More →

]]>Read more of Kim Lawton’s interview at the Lambeth Conference in Canterbury with Episcopal Bishop Eugene Sutton of Maryland:

Q: Overall, have there been new relationships built here, as the organizers suggest?

A: Oh, yes, this Lambeth Conference is all about the building of relationships. Everybody wants to know are we going to split, is there going to be schism. Anybody who knows the answer to that is fooling you if they say they do, but it’s just a classic situation of only two options. On the one hand, there are those who believe the big issue before us of homosexuality is a sin, and then on the other side there are those who believe as a justice issue that homosexual persons are loved by God and need all the rights and privileges as everyone else, even in the church. How do you reconcile those two? That’s the issue before us.

Q: Can they be reconciled?

Bishop Eugene Sutton

A: I don’t think the issues can be reconciled, but people can be reconciled. There’s an old proverb that goes this way: If you want to go fast, go alone. If you want to go far, go with others. And that applies whether or not you are the Diocese of New Hampshire or if you are with those bishops who decided not to come. It is much easier and quicker to do things alone. But if we want to go far in making a difference in the world, then we need all of us. We need to take others with us, and that means that things are going to go a bit slower than people on both sides would want. In Jesus’ day, the religious leaders had a conference maybe similar to this, not as large, where one of the Pharisees said do not be too quick to decide on whether or not this man Jesus is of God. If he is of God, the Spirit will reveal that to us over time. And if not, it will also be revealed to us. What we need to do here at Lambeth is take a deep breath together and don’t come too quickly to decisions and resolutions. If what we are doing, and the full inclusion of gay and lesbian people in the life of the church, if that is of God, the Holy Spirit will reveal it to us over time.

Q: Have you been hearing from your fellow bishops from other parts of the world that they are still troubled by what the US has done?

A: Oh, yes. I’ve asked some of the bishops in countries where Christians are a persecuted minority, and I’ve asked them, have the actions of the Episcopal Church in 2003 caused problems for you and your people? One bishop said to me, “Of course, my brother, it’s caused tremendous problems.” They are persecuted every day by a Muslim majority. But he said to me, “I’m not asking you to make my life easier. I just want you to know what it has done here.” He is willing to bear the cross. If standing up for the least in his society, the voiceless who are people of homosexual orientation, if that is the price he must pay, he is willing to bear that cross. But he wants you to know that it’s a cross for him in a way that Americans do not have to bear.

Q: Americans have been the subject of quite a bit of discussion, and some of the proposals are pretty restrictive. Obviously, they are still proposals, but do you sense a movement toward some more punitive measures coming out of Lambeth?

A: There is some movement. Some want to use the language of judgment and of punitive actions and of bans. But there is something about banning people, banning actions of people who believe they are led by the Holy Spirit, there’s something about that that is very difficult for other Christians to do. I don’t believe there will be any bans coming out of this Lambeth Conference. Why? Because we’ve prayed together, we’ve studied the Scriptures together. We’ve argued together forcefully. How then can you ban your brother or your sister because they disagree with you on some fundamental things about ethics and morality? But Jesus, in one of his great parables, when he’s talking about who is to enter the kingdom of heaven, those who are entering the kingdom of heaven are entering not because of anything around sexual ethics or what they believe about women or views about interpretation of Scripture. Jesus said those who enter the kingdom are those who have fed hungry people. They are housing those who have no home. They are visiting people in prison and in hospitals. They are giving a cup of water to those who are thirsty. When we get back to these issues, I think it would be a wonderful thing if, when people think of the Anglican Communion, they think of oh, how they love each other and how they are feeding a hungry world, not oh, those are the ones who are bickering about sex.

Q: This was the first Lambeth meeting for Katharine Jefferts Schori, who is here not only as a bishop but as the presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church. How has she been received, and how do you perceive that issue is being dealt with here?

A: Her presence, of course, is pushing the edge for a number of people. They are in societies and cultures where women do not take leadership. I think it’s a marvelous work of the Holy Spirit. But, of course, I’m African American. I’m the first African-American bishop of Maryland. The first bishop of Maryland owned slaves, as did most of the Episcopal clergy, and they used the Bible to justify it. For hundreds of years, my people have been subjugated, abused, and scapegoated by use of Scripture. For many, many years people have used Scripture to build boundaries and bans around the reach, the scope of God. It’s no accident that the African-American bishops in the American Episcopal Church all have a full-inclusion agenda, because we see this as a justice issue, people using the Bible to build a fence and to limit those who are not like them. What we want to say is, before you make decisions about whether or not women should take leadership in churches, consult with women. Before you make decisions about whether gay and lesbian people are called by God to be in communion with other Christians, talk to people of homosexual orientation and include them. One is for sure in my diocese, whatever decisions we make, it won’t be the decisions made by a relatively small number of men sitting in a room deciding for everybody. All of us will be there. We dare to believe that the Holy Spirit speaks even through the uneducated, even through people who normally are not at the corridors of power. We are going to include the voices of everybody. Maybe one other thing: Some hundreds of years ago, slave owners said to my people God wants you to be a slave, and they were educated, they were erudite, and they had the Bible. My forebears, my mothers, fathers of my race and my church said you’re wrong, and they could not even read. The question we need to ask ourselves is, how did they know, how did they know that despite the Scriptures that people were pointing at for them saying that slavery was justified, how did they know that God didn’t want them to be that, that God wanted them to be free? That is an issue for us today. Before we so quickly exclude others we need to say, could the Holy Spirit be speaking to us through them? And maybe we are only interpreting Scriptures based on our own comfortablity, rather than what God wants.

Q: You spoke earlier about the spiritual discipline of patience. A lot of people come to these conferences and it sounds like arguments we heard five years ago, ten years ago, and I’m picking up some sense of frustration in some quarters that we’ve had these conversations and we’ve had these conversations. How do you respond?

A: Yes, we’ve had these conversations for several years now. But Christians always need to take the long view. It took the church 300 years to come to an acceptable formulation of the divinity of Christ, the Nicene Creed. What did Christians do for 300 years? They talked with each other, they gathered. Some believed this, some believed that. It took the world hundreds of years to come to a conclusion that slavery everywhere was wrong. It’s a relatively recent phenomenon. It’s taken the church hundreds, millennia of years to discover that God is calling women to leadership in the church. So just because we’ve talked about issues of human sexuality for the last 20, 30 years, that doesn’t mean much in the life of the church. Our children and children’s children will judge us by what we’ve done today, and I want to be on the right side of history here, and history is a long time. So people may be tired of talking, but when we’re tired of talking about these issues, we are no longer being faithful. We’re just doing what we want to do, and we’re believing, “I’ll just hang out with those who agree with me.” That may be easy, and it may cause you to move off of these issues very quickly. But it’s not being faithful. We need all of us.

Q: Anything else you want to add?

A: Maybe this: The Archbishop of Canterbury said in his last presidential address that the two sides of this issue need to come to the center, which is Christ. But, of course, if the center is a political compromise, that hardly looks like the Gospel. If Jesus is the center, Jesus is also the one who is before us and in front of us, and Jesus is also at the margins. If we are going to follow the center who is Jesus, that means along the way we may have to make some uncomfortable changes in the status quo. So I believe that the Holy Spirit is calling us in this conference to take some bold steps toward inclusion of all people, even though it causes pain among some, because a lot of us believe that’s where Jesus is.